XRP holders question whether Ripple is a help and if there is any potential to grow without it.
The XRP community spent the weekend debating an age-old question: should the token and the ledger behind it be judged solely through the lens of Ripple, and is this co-dependency really the biggest advantage or the most dangerous weakness?
It all started with the idea that too many people measure success by Ripple’s deals, its billion-dollar acquisitions and partnerships with financial giants, while ignoring the fact that a public ledger should stand on its own.
The reaction was immediate, with some noting that outside of Ripple there is not much going on, with meme coins and NFTs crowding the space but not really bringing sustainable use cases. One response summed it up: more gambling does not equal survival.
Others pointed to the network’s structure, saying that even if Ripple went away, XRPL would still process transactions because it is decentralized enough that no single entity can stop it.
The correction followed on from the fact that Ripple runs multiple nodes for its own operations, but just one validator on the default list. This means that the company’s technical role is smaller than critics assume, even if the brand dominance keeps everyone focused on it.
The problem is still there, because there aren’t as many equally relevant players, so attention stays on Ripple by default and attempts to build organic ecosystems feel thin. Someone there said that it is hard to get real interest from outside, and until that changes, the idea of being dependent will not go away.
The truth is pretty straightforward: XRP can exist without Ripple, but whether it can actually grow without the company making headlines is the real question.
